Greetings! Consti here in the Bunker Law library taking a refresher course in illegal behavior. I’ve come to the conclusion that NO AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD OBEY THE LAW. That’s right. I said it. Break the law who cares? Apparently the Federal Government and the people who write the laws don’t give a rat’s kiester about obeying the laws of the land so why should we? So go out and steal cars, rob little old ladies, beat up whomever you like, fire off your gun into the air in a crowded city, run over pedestrians (and award yourself points for it!), sell anything you want even if it’s not yours to sell, walk into someone’s home and take their positions, their wife, walk into any business and just take what you want. Who cares? “Anarchy burger! Hold the Government!” as the song goes.
[ED NOTE: If you think I am REALLY condoning lawlessness then you are humorless and don’t know what sarcasm is do you? So before you comment below about “how can you condone it?” Or go off on some silly rant thinking you caught me on something I don’t want to hear it. We should all follow the law!]
Now why am I saying this? Well I’ve always been told since I was a little kid to “lead by example.” I was also told to obey the rules. These are fundamental, intelligent words to live by. However the actions of this administration clearly show that they are either not able or willing to follow the laws of this country. Specifically; U.S. Code Title 8 Chapter 12 Subchapter II Part VIII Section 1324 Here are a few of the sections of the code below that I would like to highlight.
iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
(c) Authority to arrest No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.
Now that’s the important part kids. Make sure you have it in your notes because it will be on the final exam.
“…and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.”
Now I am no attorney. I don’t make claims to be. But it would sound to me like the Arizona law is no different. And in actuality it’s more granular in its definition of Authority to arrest to assure that racial profiling does not take place. So with that in mind did the Labor Secretary BREAK THE LAW? What REALLY is their constitutional complaint with SB1070?
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3owMAs2t2Fo&feature=player_embedded
Is she not aiding and abetting illegal behavior in relation to her assertion that ever worker here legally or illegally has a RIGHT to a fare wage? Is that not condoning lawlessness? Doesn’t that sound like the SEIU which she has ties to? “We fight for every worker worldwide!” How about her quote to a Latino voter rally a few years ago; “We are all Americans, whether you are legalized or not.”
If you need further examples of this attitude coming from the administration one has to look no further than Obama’s pick for ICE in Harold Hurtt. Who is to oversee and promote partnerships between federal and local officials on the issue; “Hurtt was a supporter of “sanctuary city” policies, by which illegal immigrants who don’t commit crimes can live without fear of exposure or detainment because police don’t check for immigration papers.” So despite being here illegally he condones it! And this guy has a key spot at ICE? Don’t enforce the law, work around it!
Still need more examples? How about alleged behind closed door talks in the administration to use Homeland Security to unilaterally grant legal status on a mass basis to illegal immigrants? Using a procedure known as deferred action or parole which would give illegal immigrants the ability to seek a work permit and temporary legal status which is usually done on a case-by-case basis. Thus circumventing the congress that has the legal authority to write immigration law! You know like they floated reconciliation for the Obamacare horse pill. (Personally I hope he does it since its political suicide in a mid-term currently.)
Still not seeing it? Ok. How about the Sestak and Romanoff job offers? (Typical Chicago wheeling and dealing politics in the WH.) The WH says everything was above board, but refuses to release ANY documentation to prove it. You know that’s how Obama rolls on transparency! “The Resolution of Inquiry failed on a party-line vote in the House Judiciary Committee, 15-12.” And of course this is a little story in the Denver Post! Where are the other news organizations on this? Answer = they are complicit in the stonewalling.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBqdKKKRrrg&feature=player_embedded
How about the current comment from Supreme Court nominee Kagan’s statement; “It’s fine if the law bans books because government won’t really enforce it.” That includes political pamphlets that are considered “outside the mainstream.” Correct me if I am wrong but didn’t the Nazi’s BURN books to keep the populace ignorant?
How about Obama going over congress’s head and the law in demanding BP pay $20 Billion to a slush (excuse me trust) fund for the oil spill catastrophe. Doesn’t the law limit liability to $75 Million? Pish-posh why should we hold them liable to the law when we can extort so much more AND TAX THE RECIPIENTS!! Never mind that Obama has played more golf during the spill while GWB GAVE UP THE GAME during the war! Didn’t the Demo-nit-wits bash him in the press for playing golf while soldiers died? Wasn’t BP supposed to help Obama “save the world?”
Break the law kids for fun and profit! The WH doesn’t care so why should you?
Consti.
The rule of law is dead
The 2012 Presidential Election is fast approaching
The GOP race is now a field of 4 with only Romney, Gingrich, Paul, & Santorum still standing. Who will be the next candidate to exit the race & who will emerge as the eminent GOP nominee?
Follow us on Twitter & join our 2012 election FaceBook page for updates & new blog articles.
Contact us if you are passionate about politics & want to blog with us.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
“It’s fine if the law bans books because government won’t really enforce it.” That includes political pamphlets that are considered “outside the mainstream.”
This is a classic example of the hypocrisy of the Left (a micro-cosm of your entire shrewd article). When Sarah Palin (who, for the record, I am no longer in support of) was simply accused of “wanting” to ban a few books from a local library (which later proved to be yet another baselessly skewed critique), Liberals went bonkers, acting as if she had committed high treason, before anything was even established as truth. Yet Elena Kagan can make a blatant, totally verifiable (as opposed to a statement from a singular disgruntled library employee) statement as above and, once again, few if any Liberals come forward to call her on it.
Disgustingly typical behavior that yet again demonstrates how “truth” has no standard and is simply in the eye of the beholder when it comes to the Left. If it’s politically or socially expedient, then it’s truth. If it rubs against the grain, then it’s untruth.
Pffft.
Good blog. Lawyers on the left see the law as something to get around, rather than a good idea with purpose. They surf the law the way techies “surfed” the web. Right and wrong are abstract themes and their goal is to find loopholes rather than defend the law (or constitution) in question. Law schools often require “ethics” class- but always in the first year so as to allow time for all decency to be purged before going out in the real world and inflicting damage.